There are a handful of organizations in the United States that have raised money from the unsuspecting public to back ballot initiatives, legislation and litigation at the state and federal levels against hunting and sound scientific wildlife management. They include the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Defenders of Wildlife, In Defense of Animals (IDA) and the Sierra Club. Such groups attempt to lure children and adults alike into their fold while promoting an anti-hunting agenda to turn anyone willing to listen against hunters and hunting. Going on the offensive to protect hunting’s future begins with understanding its foes.
Alarming to hunters, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle has voiced his radical anti-hunting opinions on multiple occasions stating that “animals are no one’s property, and they have the right to not be ‘taken,’ ‘harvested,’ or ‘culled,’ or any other euphemism for murder that wildlife managers use.” In 1991, Field & Stream reported that Pacelle said, “We want to stigmatize hunting, we see it as the next logical target … Having hunters oversee wildlife is like having Dracula guard the blood bank.”
The HSUS excels at raising money via false advertising and it does not support local animal shelters as the multiple NRAHLF.org articles listed below highlight.
PETA This anti-hunting organization is best known for staging bizarre attention-grabbing public displays, such as humans sans clothing in cages. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), based in Norfolk, Va., admits it works to eliminate hunting, the use of leather and the eating of meat in an effort to turn everyone into vegans. Anglers should be on guard, too, because in recent years it has attempted to stop fishing and disrupt fishing contests.
PETA has made its anti-hunting views clear on its website stating that hunting is an “unnecessary, violent form of ‘entertainment’” and lists ways to combat hunting including “joining or forming an anti-hunting organization, protesting organized hunts and spreading deer repellent or human hair (from barbershops) in hunting areas.”
Further attacking hunters, its website also notes, “The relatively small fee each hunter pays does not cover the cost of hunting programs or game warden salaries. Hunting fees pay for hunter programs that benefit only hunters, like manipulating animal populations to increase the number of animals available to kill. The public lands that many hunters use are supported by taxpayers, and funds benefiting “non-game” species are scarce.” All lies—immediately followed by the site’s bright yellow donation button.
For the truth on how hunters foot the bill for wildlife conservation—1.1 billion alone for 2016—check out these links:
Defenders of Wildlife Defenders of Wildlife, founded in 1947 and based in Washington D.C., claims to be a “national conservation organization focused solely on wildlife and habitat conservation and the safeguarding of biodiversity,” and typically campaigns for the restoration and protection of predators, including wolves, despite the fact that their populations have recovered according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). This group's overarching goal is presently its misguided effort to restore and recover wolves in the Lower 48 states, which includes putting a stop to all wolf hunting and promoting the release of wolves into more areas. An online map producedby the group shows places in Colorado, for example, where the Department of Wildlife is being encouraged to release them.
For the last few years, the USFWS has attempted to delist wolves from the Endangered Species list in the Rocky Mountain and Great Lakes regions based on scientific studies showing that wolves have recovered. Defenders of Wildlife, however, has filed numerous lawsuits against the USFWS, attempting to prevent delisting.
In Defense of Animals In Defense of Animals (IDA) claims to be an international animal rights and rescue organization dedicated to protecting the rights, welfare and habitats of animals. Founded in 1983 in San Rafael, Calif., IDA has made its anti-hunting opinion clear on its website falsely stating that “hunting may have played an important role, next to plant gathering and scavenging, for human survival in prehistoric times, but the modern ‘sportsman’ stalks and kills animals for ‘recreation.’” The organization goes as far as accusing bowhunters of having a “psychological disconnect” due to their “need to transcend character flaws or attempt to overcome other inadequacies in their lives by dominating innocent and defenseless animals.”
Sierra Club This national organization, based in Oakland, Calif., uses the guise of protecting public lands and national parks to champion the “conservation” of hunted species such as marmots, bison and wolves. While supporting large set-asides of land under wilderness designations, they do not consider hunter access to these lands, as wilderness designations prohibit all improvements, such as roads or trails.
The group is currently voicing its opposition toward the USFWS' proposal to delist grizzlies, despite the evidence of recovery and the conservation plan provided by the USFWS, as mentioned in the previous section. The Sierra Club stated: “That would be a mistake—both because of what we do know and what we don't know,” adding, “Here's what we do know: If the Yellowstone grizzlies are delisted, then bears that range outside national park boundaries will be at the mercy of hostile state-management policies. That means bears would once again be subject to trophy hunting. It also means that bears could be eliminated from some areas where they currently live. …”
Like its anti-hunting counterparts, the Sierra Club recognizes that lies and attacks on hunting go far to raising funds. For the truth—and the scientific facts that show the grizzly bear has recovered and should be delisted—click here.
Anti-Hunting Propaganda in Schools Attention parents: Pay close attention to the materials your kids bring home from school. Note the sources they quote in their written reports and the sources of their stuffed animals and T-shirts. All of these could be avenues anti-hunters are using to reach them and fill their young minds with anti-hunting propaganda. Teachers are often looking for something new—or easy—to teach in the classroom and anti-hunting groups stand ready to supply them with materials touting their agenda. Some teachers do not care or catch the perverted view or underlying theme.
If your child comes home with such literature, call the school and respectfully complain to the teacher and ask questions. Politely encourage school staff to teach the widely-documented and successful pro-hunting programs offered by America’s state game agencies, such as Project Wild. Consider contacting your state fish and game agency to see what literature the agency would recommend or provide that could be sent to the teacher by the either you or the agency itself.
You can also invite your child—and all of his or her friends—to a sportsmen’s fair or your local gun club or range so they can learn about firearm safety, hunting and wildlife conservation. Many local and state fairs also have displays that quickly teach kids about hunting and trapping and how these practices are beneficial to game management.